Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.090 (2026)

Civil actions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) A person who is injured under this chapter may bring a civil action in the superior court to enjoin further violations, and to seek up to five hundred dollars per violation, or actual damages, whichever is greater. A person who seeks damages under this subsection may only bring an action against a person or entity that directly violates RCW 19.190.080.

(2) A person engaged in the business of providing internet access service to the public, an owner of a web page, or trademark owner who is adversely affected by reason of a violation of RCW 19.190.080, may bring an action against a person who violates RCW 19.190.080 to:

(a) Enjoin further violations of RCW 19.190.080; and

(b) Recover the greater of actual damages or five thousand dollars per violation of RCW 19.190.080.

(3) In an action under subsection (2) of this section, a court may increase the damages up to three times the damages allowed by subsection (2) of this section if the defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of violating this section. The court may award costs and reasonable attorneys' fees to a prevailing party.

[ 2005 c 378 s 3.]

Notes:

Severability—2005 c 378: See note following RCW 19.190.080.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2015–2023 · leading case: Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., 145 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (W.D. Wash. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., 145 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (W.D. Wash. 2015). · cites it 2× “” RCW 19.190.090(1). The legislature again made findings regarding the first three elements of a CPA claim.”

Wright v. Lyft, Inc. (Wash. 2017). · cites it 6× “A person who seeks damages under this subsection may only bring an action against a person or entity that directly violates[RCW 19.”

Hodgell v. Andersen Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 2× “14 In addition, the Washington Supreme Court has held that CEMA provides a direct cause 15 of action for damages only for phishing violations under Section 19.190.090, and that a recipient 16 of unsolicited messages in violation of CEMA must otherwise pursue damages under the…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.190.090(1) — 2 cases

Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., 145 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (W.D. Wash. 2015). “” RCW 19.190.090(1). The legislature again made findings regarding the first three elements of a CPA claim.”

Wright v. Lyft, Inc. (Wash. 2017). “A person who seeks damages under this subsection may only bring an action against a person or entity that directly violates[RCW 19.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.